First, we need the criteria on which we will compare them. Let's try calories, nutrients, durability and ability to be stored, cost of growing, and suitability as a tech company logo. Cancel that last one.

Now we can give each one a relative value on these measures. But we aren't done.

Which of these criteria are most important? Can one even be singled out?

If we're looking to complete a meal plan, then the calories and nutrients are of similar importance, and both are dependent on the rest of the food. If you need nutrients without calories, apples will be more desirable, while needing both will push you toward apples. If you have a specific deficiency, such as if you are a sailor in the 18th century, then oranges with their high vitamin-C content will win.

Transportation is important. An orange can sustain greater damage than an apple, with minor impacts which would bruise and damage an apple being shrugged off by the orange's thicker skin. So if you're transporting your fruit by cannon, go with oranges.

An absolute "this fruit is better" comparison is pointless, but for particular situations, one fruit can be better than the other. Keep that in mind when people try to convince you that two or more items or ideas cannot be compared because they are "like apples and oranges". They can be compared, and possibly, if they are so eager for you to not compare them, you should be more eager to do just that.